Spatial distribution of biopsy cores and the detection of intra-lesion pathologic heterogeneity

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine if spatial distribution of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI-TRUS) fusion biopsy cores to the index lesion reveals trends in the detection of intra-lesion Gleason heterogeneity and a more optimal prostate biopsy strategy. Methods: Index lesion was the lesion with longest diameter on T2-weighted (T2W)-MRI. In cohort 1, fusion biopsy cores biopsies were taken in areas in the center of the target as well as 1 cm laterally on each side. For cohort 2, targeted biopsies were taken from the center of the lesion only. Heterogeneity was defined as difference in maximum Gleason score obtained from fusion cores in the center of the index lesion versus cores obtained from the periphery (cohort 1), or any difference in maximum Gleason score obtained from fusion cores targeted to the index lesion (cohort 2) compared with systematic 12 cores TRUS biopsy. Results: Ninety-nine consecutive patients (35 and 64 in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively) with median age (SD) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 66.9 (±5.9) and 9.7 (±8.2) respectively, were included. Age, PSA, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, and preoperative MRI lesion size were not significantly different between cohorts. Gleason heterogeneity was observed at a significantly higher rate in cohort 1 versus cohort 2 (58% versus 24%; p = 0.041). In cohort 1, cores obtained from the center of the lesion had higher Gleason score than cores obtained from the periphery of the targeted lesion in 57% of cases. Conclusions: We demonstrate that there is observable tumor heterogeneity in biopsy specimens, and that increased number of cores, as well as cores focused on the center and periphery of the largest lesion in the prostate, provide more comprehensive diagnostic information about the patient’s clinical risk category than taking nonspecific cores targeted within the tumor.

[1]  Inderbir S. Gill,et al.  Prostate evaluation for clinically important disease: Sampling using image-guidance or not? (The PRECISION study, NCT02380027) , 2018 .

[2]  M. Ratain,et al.  Genomic Heterogeneity Within Individual Prostate Cancer Foci Impacts Predictive Biomarkers of Targeted Therapy. , 2018, European urology focus.

[3]  A. Sidana,et al.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology—Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging‐Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help? , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[4]  P Choyke,et al.  Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve , 2017, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[5]  G. Cattaneo,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Number and Spatial Distribution of Cores for Better Index Tumor Detection and Characterization , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[6]  A. Sidana,et al.  Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[7]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[8]  B. Hadaschik,et al.  Transcriptome Wide Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy and Matching Surgical Specimens from High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: The Target Must Be Hit. , 2017, European urology focus.

[9]  M. Kamrava,et al.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification , 2016, American journal of clinical oncology.

[10]  R. Gabe,et al.  PROMIS — Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer☆ , 2015, Contemporary clinical trials.

[11]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[12]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[13]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[14]  K. Chrouser,et al.  Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer , 2004 .

[15]  C. Sundaram,et al.  Biopsy Gleason score: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer? , 1997, British journal of urology.

[16]  P. Pepe,et al.  Erectile dysfunction in 1050 men following extended (18 cores) vs saturation (28 cores) vs saturation plus MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (32 cores) , 2016, International Journal of Impotence Research.

[17]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[18]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1994, Urology.